View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Engineering Fault Isolation |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 30-180 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1-6 | 1-8 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |